11 Jan 20
@deepthought saidI don't think so. For example, I can comment objectively on a stylistic device used in a work by Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter one jot if I liked or disliked Shakespeare, or even if I suspected that Shakespeare wasn't the real author and perhaps never actually existed as he has been presented.
Your view of the existence of God and how literally the Bible ought to be taken does matter really. Were you a Christian literalist then you'd be justified in ascribing the precise wording to divine intervention. A Christian non-literalist might ascribe this to poetic license on behalf the the Bible writers. An atheist would point out that in the ancient Canaanite reli ...[text shortened]... iters seem to have liked making plays on words so be wary of reading too much into precise wordings.
11 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThink about it; you studied the Old Testament and New and concluded there were more than one gods in the scripture. You didn’t even recognize the revelation of the One True God. Even if you didn’t agree with there only being one, you came up with two while the scripture stresses one, and you’re here debating there isn’t one in three while you cannot even see just one in scripture. Your views have colored your understanding of the text, and why wouldn’t it?
I don't think so. For example, I can comment objectively on a stylistic device used in a work by Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter one jot if I liked or disliked Shakespeare, or even if I suspected that Shakespeare wasn't the real author and perhaps never actually existed as he has been presented.
11 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidBut you have three gods, three l”distinct” persons.
You didn’t even recognize the revelation of the One True God.
Three gods.
11 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidNot quite Kelly. My studies merely identified the multitude of contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture that rendered the idea of a consistent God throughout scripture nonsensical. The OT God is a tribal, petty, jealous, hot headed and vengeful God that, try as you will, simply doesn't put in an appearance in the NT.
Think about it; you studied the Old Testament and New and concluded there were more than one gods in the scripture. You didn’t even recognize the revelation of the One True God. Even if you didn’t agree with there only being one, you came up with two while the scripture stresses one, and you’re here debating there isn’t one in three while you cannot even see just one in scripture. Your views have colored your understanding of the text, and why wouldn’t it?
11 Jan 20
2 edits
@ghost-of-a-duke saidShow them. So far you cherry pick things and put spins on them that have nothing to do with the God of the Bible only your dislike of how God does things.
Not quite Kelly. My studies merely identified the multitude of contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture that rendered the idea of a consistent God throughout scripture nonsensical. The OT God is a tribal, petty, jealous, hot headed and vengeful God that, try as you will, simply doesn't put in an appearance in the NT.
11 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidIn previous threads I have written about dozens of contradictions, as have other posters.
Show them. So far you cherry pick things and put spins on them that have nothing to do with the God of the Bible only your dislike of how God does things.
Perhaps one needs to study the bible to really grasp them?!
11 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOkay, sure.
In previous threads I have written about dozens of contradictions, as have other posters.
Perhaps one needs to study the bible to really grasp them?!
11 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidApparently not, I'm not Sonship so what you say to him may not make it to me, as you have pointed out while rebuking me for talking about things I have not seen.
Didn't you follow those threads? There have been many.
In the last, Sonship asked me to give my top 3 contradictions and only really managed to deal with one of them. The others he, of course, said he would come back to later,...but never really did.
11 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidThere have been countless threads about the contradictions in the bible (many created or contributed to by ToO). Find it hard to believe you haven't encountered any of them.
Apparently not, I'm not Sonship so what you say to him may not make it to me, as you have pointed out while rebuking me for talking about things I have not seen.
11 Jan 20
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOnce again I am not going to try and figure out all of the who, what, where you were posting so I can find something that you think matters. I'm not going to beg or go looking, if you want to say it is there to me without providing anything, than say it and be done with it. There are posters here I don't bother with, and if you want to treat me that way, all is fair, we all choose what we say to whom.
There have been countless threads about the contradictions in the bible (many created or contributed to by ToO). Find it hard to believe you haven't encountered any of them.
11 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidI rebuke you for not talking about things you have seen.
Apparently not, I'm not Sonship so what you say to him may not make it to me, as you have pointed out while rebuking me for talking about things I have not seen.
Such as the post I keep presenting you with...
11 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt's extremely difficult to be objective. In physics we have a formal language (maths) that protects us from our own biases, but even so I wonder about the dark matter/energy paradigms. In social sciences there is no formal language it is all done in natural languages, and we can treat literary criticism and these religious discussions as social science. Those that post here are prey to their own biases. Someone who dislikes Shakespeare due to his being a dead white male, or whatever, will tend to be dismissive of his stylistic devices. Whereas someone who errs in the other direction and thinks he's the greatest will tend to overpraise.
I don't think so. For example, I can comment objectively on a stylistic device used in a work by Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter one jot if I liked or disliked Shakespeare, or even if I suspected that Shakespeare wasn't the real author and perhaps never actually existed as he has been presented.
My own view is that there's a danger of reading too much into the exact wording. "We" can be, as you say, a royal we, it can be a Trinitarian we, it can mean that he's treating his arch-angels as equals and it can be a result of mistranslation or transliteration from earlier lost texts, and it can be legacy from an earlier polythestic era. What weight one gives to each of these possibilities depends on ones personal bias. The value/fact distinction has full reign here.
12 Jan 20
@deepthought saidYes, you raise some good points.
It's extremely difficult to be objective. In physics we have a formal language (maths) that protects us from our own biases, but even so I wonder about the dark matter/energy paradigms. In social sciences there is no formal language it is all done in natural languages, and we can treat literary criticism and these religious discussions as social science. Those that pos ...[text shortened]... these possibilities depends on ones personal bias. The value/fact distinction has full reign here.
Objectivity is a precarious business. I do suspect though, when it comes to Scripture, a non-theist will view the texts with (at the very least) a higher level of objectivity, as they have 'no horse in the race.' A Trinitarian, for example, has already decided what the texts mean and there is no wriggle room on that. (Unlike my own position, where a good counter-argument may carry some sway).
12 Jan 20
'I don't remember any discussions about this, please make the effort to type it all out again now just for me' and 'I don't remember what you believe about X and I deny that you have told me what you believe about X 10 times already in the past' seem to be vaguely passive-aggressive go-to Christian 'debate' devices here, used ad nauseam by dj2becker, but getting used increasingly by the likes of KellyJay and SecondSon and galveston75.